3 ms·
Agree. OTOH there are elements on OSX that play better with Fitt's Law than on other OSs, like the menu bar on top or the customisable hot corners (which I don'
by ricardolopes 11y ago
Agree. OTOH there are elements on OSX that play better with Fitt's Law than on other OSs, like the menu bar on top or the customisable hot corners (which I don't think are as common on Windows). So I guess it's difficult to come up with the perfect UI.
- mavhc 11y agoMy problem with the argument that menu bars should be at the top is when you have to return the pointer to where you are. Thus I prefer only using context type menus for everything, 0 movement of the mouse is infinitely better anyway. And you save screen space.
- collyw 11y agoTrue, but there are some minimal Linux desktops like that (everything is launched from a right click context menu), and they never feel right. They are certainly the least intuitive to use when you first try them. There is nothing to left click.
- Avshalom 11y agoSure but hierarchal text menus are widely regarded as absolutely terrible for usability, if your user is forced to use them often enough to actually justify giving them an infinite target* then you've basically failed in UI design (granted that's not always avoidable there's a reason we still have menus despite their awfulness). *of course due to the wide screen nature of monitors they aren't actually infinite because you'll almost always have significant horizontal velocity by the time your pointer gets there causing you to have to stop and carefully move your mouse just as much as if you had window-attached menus and often further if you've rammed into the corner furthest from your desired menu. The RiscOS/NeXT approach of putting the menus in the context menu is arguably best for acquisition speed although probably worse for discoverability because you have to take an action before you can see even the top-level of the hierarchy.